MORE than expensive - outrageous!
#181
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
"expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
news:010820031257372523%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
>
>
> Mathematic gymnastics, maybe, but disclaimed many times as being
> tongue-in-cheek. I think that most people who read these messages
> know that I don't seriously consider that a comparison of a laptop
> and an igniter is anything more than coincidental due to the
> appearance of the two items, and anecdotal/rhetorical. You really
> should stop flaying me with this as it has become a red herring,
> i.e. a substitute for the discussion of what is really a matter of
> consumer relations.
Maybe you disclaimed your bizarre calculations as being tongue-in-cheek,
yes, but perhaps your tongue is permanently lodged in your cheek? Because
in your subsequent messages, you continued to refer to the part as a "$27
part." If readers of your messages are not to take your mathematical
manipulations seriously, then neither should you.
>
> My mechanic has my best interests at heart. He doesn't use
> aftermarket parts unless nothing else is available. My instructions
> to him are to give me a safe and reliable car. The pricing of the
> part is not his fault and I hold him harmless in all of this. The
> price of the igniter is controlled by the dealership, and so is the
> attitude of their personnel.
> > Maybe you will have luck with a Toyota Corolla
>
> I hear that they rank right up there in quality.
Yes, but doubtful that they will meet your 22-year litmus test! The
reputation of an automobile is based on overall customer satisfaction and
overall reliability, which is largely determined by other people's accounts
and reasonable standards for durability, longevity, and fewest number of
major problems. Your standards, as evidenced by your recent "outrage," are
not nearly so reasonable. The Toyota is "right up there" with Honda in
quality, but if Honda quality has dissatisfied you, then being "right up
there" is not far enough!
> I don't expect that a
> breakdown or a worn-out part will result in such an assault on
> my wallet or on my sensitivities. These are my feelings and
> don't require any justification. Somebody at Honda or the
> dealership must have held up that part and speculated about
> what the market would bear. Well, I'm here to say that
> they've miscalculated.
You said it: "I don't expect..." With a 22-year-old car, you should expect
a lot more repairs than a dinky $193 igniter! I'd rather be Prometheus than
Epimetheus.
Also, as others have suggested, your particular Honda dealership is not
generating these prices at random, contrary to what you believe or have
convinced yourself to believe (as in the misguided notion you have developed
that your part "looks like it should be worth $27"; since when does your
subjective evaluation based on appearance dictate market value?).
You must feel badly now that you didn't put in the time, energy, and
inconvenience that other people invest in trying to find a reasonable price
for a car part, or at least to determine based on other suppliers that the
$193 cost was warranted by the current market situation. You paid up at the
time, and then complain later about it. The Honda dealership obviously did
not "miscalculate" because you purchased the part at their exact asking
price!
No, your feelings do not require justification, as you have already shown us
with your initial statement that you were very angry and then the added
qualifier "And rightly so." (!!!)
#182
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article
<5WzWa.70438$rsJ.34603@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.r ogers.com>, Stephen
Bigelow <sbigelowXX@rogers.com> wrote:
> "expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
> news:010820031257372523%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
>
> > > The case that the part would not be available for such an elderly
> > > car is not completely speculative,
> >
> > Of course it is.
>
> No, it is not. Be glad you're trying (and succeeding) to find parts for a 22
> year old Honda, and not something else.
>
Have it your way. I expect to find parts for it for a few more years.
Then it's adios to my '81 Honda.
>
> > The
> > price of the igniter is controlled by the dealership, and so is the
> > attitude of their personnel.
>
> Oh.
> So what is their cost, as delivered to you on the parts counter?
How would I know that? If you are asking because you know the answer,
then spare me the guessing game and say what the wholesale cost is.
> And what price do you think they should charge you?
In other messages I said that I would not have been happy if it had
cost me $75, but I wouldn't have been shocked.
<5WzWa.70438$rsJ.34603@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.r ogers.com>, Stephen
Bigelow <sbigelowXX@rogers.com> wrote:
> "expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
> news:010820031257372523%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
>
> > > The case that the part would not be available for such an elderly
> > > car is not completely speculative,
> >
> > Of course it is.
>
> No, it is not. Be glad you're trying (and succeeding) to find parts for a 22
> year old Honda, and not something else.
>
Have it your way. I expect to find parts for it for a few more years.
Then it's adios to my '81 Honda.
>
> > The
> > price of the igniter is controlled by the dealership, and so is the
> > attitude of their personnel.
>
> Oh.
> So what is their cost, as delivered to you on the parts counter?
How would I know that? If you are asking because you know the answer,
then spare me the guessing game and say what the wholesale cost is.
> And what price do you think they should charge you?
In other messages I said that I would not have been happy if it had
cost me $75, but I wouldn't have been shocked.
#183
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article
<5WzWa.70438$rsJ.34603@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.r ogers.com>, Stephen
Bigelow <sbigelowXX@rogers.com> wrote:
> "expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
> news:010820031257372523%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
>
> > > The case that the part would not be available for such an elderly
> > > car is not completely speculative,
> >
> > Of course it is.
>
> No, it is not. Be glad you're trying (and succeeding) to find parts for a 22
> year old Honda, and not something else.
>
Have it your way. I expect to find parts for it for a few more years.
Then it's adios to my '81 Honda.
>
> > The
> > price of the igniter is controlled by the dealership, and so is the
> > attitude of their personnel.
>
> Oh.
> So what is their cost, as delivered to you on the parts counter?
How would I know that? If you are asking because you know the answer,
then spare me the guessing game and say what the wholesale cost is.
> And what price do you think they should charge you?
In other messages I said that I would not have been happy if it had
cost me $75, but I wouldn't have been shocked.
<5WzWa.70438$rsJ.34603@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.r ogers.com>, Stephen
Bigelow <sbigelowXX@rogers.com> wrote:
> "expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
> news:010820031257372523%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
>
> > > The case that the part would not be available for such an elderly
> > > car is not completely speculative,
> >
> > Of course it is.
>
> No, it is not. Be glad you're trying (and succeeding) to find parts for a 22
> year old Honda, and not something else.
>
Have it your way. I expect to find parts for it for a few more years.
Then it's adios to my '81 Honda.
>
> > The
> > price of the igniter is controlled by the dealership, and so is the
> > attitude of their personnel.
>
> Oh.
> So what is their cost, as delivered to you on the parts counter?
How would I know that? If you are asking because you know the answer,
then spare me the guessing game and say what the wholesale cost is.
> And what price do you think they should charge you?
In other messages I said that I would not have been happy if it had
cost me $75, but I wouldn't have been shocked.
#184
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <Steve-8F4261.16200401082003@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
Steve <Steve@IHATESPAM.com> wrote:
> In article <010820031257372523%common_sense@emodgnik.com>,
> expensive <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > What type of Honda do you have?
> >
> > It's a blue '81 Accord/hatchback.
>
>
> Wow, an '81?
>
> I heard that the igniters fail on those after 40 years. If I were you,
> I'd sue Honda because the part malfunctioned and didn't last as long as
> it should. I'd also ask the guy from the honda dealer who sold it to
> you to check the recalled parts list from 1981 and insist that they
> should have done the repair at no charge, and that you should get a
> refund, and an apology.
>
>
> Steve
> Fantasyland, USA
I have a better idea. Why don't you act as my agent in the matter and
we can split whatever recovery you get.
Steve <Steve@IHATESPAM.com> wrote:
> In article <010820031257372523%common_sense@emodgnik.com>,
> expensive <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > What type of Honda do you have?
> >
> > It's a blue '81 Accord/hatchback.
>
>
> Wow, an '81?
>
> I heard that the igniters fail on those after 40 years. If I were you,
> I'd sue Honda because the part malfunctioned and didn't last as long as
> it should. I'd also ask the guy from the honda dealer who sold it to
> you to check the recalled parts list from 1981 and insist that they
> should have done the repair at no charge, and that you should get a
> refund, and an apology.
>
>
> Steve
> Fantasyland, USA
I have a better idea. Why don't you act as my agent in the matter and
we can split whatever recovery you get.
#185
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <Steve-8F4261.16200401082003@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
Steve <Steve@IHATESPAM.com> wrote:
> In article <010820031257372523%common_sense@emodgnik.com>,
> expensive <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > What type of Honda do you have?
> >
> > It's a blue '81 Accord/hatchback.
>
>
> Wow, an '81?
>
> I heard that the igniters fail on those after 40 years. If I were you,
> I'd sue Honda because the part malfunctioned and didn't last as long as
> it should. I'd also ask the guy from the honda dealer who sold it to
> you to check the recalled parts list from 1981 and insist that they
> should have done the repair at no charge, and that you should get a
> refund, and an apology.
>
>
> Steve
> Fantasyland, USA
I have a better idea. Why don't you act as my agent in the matter and
we can split whatever recovery you get.
Steve <Steve@IHATESPAM.com> wrote:
> In article <010820031257372523%common_sense@emodgnik.com>,
> expensive <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > What type of Honda do you have?
> >
> > It's a blue '81 Accord/hatchback.
>
>
> Wow, an '81?
>
> I heard that the igniters fail on those after 40 years. If I were you,
> I'd sue Honda because the part malfunctioned and didn't last as long as
> it should. I'd also ask the guy from the honda dealer who sold it to
> you to check the recalled parts list from 1981 and insist that they
> should have done the repair at no charge, and that you should get a
> refund, and an apology.
>
>
> Steve
> Fantasyland, USA
I have a better idea. Why don't you act as my agent in the matter and
we can split whatever recovery you get.
#186
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <nfrlivg0763qfgnnqoeintcgan908884vd@4ax.com>, TL
<tlehman@visi.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:37:11 GMT, expensive
> <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote:
> >
> >My mechanic said that this component rarely fails. Someone here
> >suggested that this item should not have failed. Failure was bad
> >enough, but the o'priced part took the cake.
>
>
> What do you think rarely means?
In this particular case, I feel it means that I am an unlucky person to
have had it happen.
> All parts fail. Some fail requently.
> Some fail rarely. So you think that you're somehow entitled because
> you were unluckly enough to have one that failed after a very lengthy
> time in service? "Should not have failed?" Living in la-la land.
But the actual failure is not something that I'm beefing, although the
low miles seem to hint that the failure was premature.. It happened,
it was a big inconvenience at the time because it happened out of town
and on the freeway, and cost me a tow prior to the fix. What I'm
beefing is the outrageous replacement cost... oh, and the callous
attitude of the dealer about it.
<tlehman@visi.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:37:11 GMT, expensive
> <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote:
> >
> >My mechanic said that this component rarely fails. Someone here
> >suggested that this item should not have failed. Failure was bad
> >enough, but the o'priced part took the cake.
>
>
> What do you think rarely means?
In this particular case, I feel it means that I am an unlucky person to
have had it happen.
> All parts fail. Some fail requently.
> Some fail rarely. So you think that you're somehow entitled because
> you were unluckly enough to have one that failed after a very lengthy
> time in service? "Should not have failed?" Living in la-la land.
But the actual failure is not something that I'm beefing, although the
low miles seem to hint that the failure was premature.. It happened,
it was a big inconvenience at the time because it happened out of town
and on the freeway, and cost me a tow prior to the fix. What I'm
beefing is the outrageous replacement cost... oh, and the callous
attitude of the dealer about it.
#187
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <nfrlivg0763qfgnnqoeintcgan908884vd@4ax.com>, TL
<tlehman@visi.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:37:11 GMT, expensive
> <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote:
> >
> >My mechanic said that this component rarely fails. Someone here
> >suggested that this item should not have failed. Failure was bad
> >enough, but the o'priced part took the cake.
>
>
> What do you think rarely means?
In this particular case, I feel it means that I am an unlucky person to
have had it happen.
> All parts fail. Some fail requently.
> Some fail rarely. So you think that you're somehow entitled because
> you were unluckly enough to have one that failed after a very lengthy
> time in service? "Should not have failed?" Living in la-la land.
But the actual failure is not something that I'm beefing, although the
low miles seem to hint that the failure was premature.. It happened,
it was a big inconvenience at the time because it happened out of town
and on the freeway, and cost me a tow prior to the fix. What I'm
beefing is the outrageous replacement cost... oh, and the callous
attitude of the dealer about it.
<tlehman@visi.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 21:37:11 GMT, expensive
> <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote:
> >
> >My mechanic said that this component rarely fails. Someone here
> >suggested that this item should not have failed. Failure was bad
> >enough, but the o'priced part took the cake.
>
>
> What do you think rarely means?
In this particular case, I feel it means that I am an unlucky person to
have had it happen.
> All parts fail. Some fail requently.
> Some fail rarely. So you think that you're somehow entitled because
> you were unluckly enough to have one that failed after a very lengthy
> time in service? "Should not have failed?" Living in la-la land.
But the actual failure is not something that I'm beefing, although the
low miles seem to hint that the failure was premature.. It happened,
it was a big inconvenience at the time because it happened out of town
and on the freeway, and cost me a tow prior to the fix. What I'm
beefing is the outrageous replacement cost... oh, and the callous
attitude of the dealer about it.
#188
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <jsCWa.15213$Vx2.7643321@newssvr28.news.prodigy.co m>,
EdRuscha <samsamjeh@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
> news:010820031257372523%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
> >
> >
> > Mathematic gymnastics, maybe, but disclaimed many times as being
> > tongue-in-cheek. I think that most people who read these messages
> > know that I don't seriously consider that a comparison of a laptop
> > and an igniter is anything more than coincidental due to the
> > appearance of the two items, and anecdotal/rhetorical. You really
> > should stop flaying me with this as it has become a red herring,
> > i.e. a substitute for the discussion of what is really a matter of
> > consumer relations.
>
> Maybe you disclaimed your bizarre calculations as being tongue-in-cheek,
> yes, but perhaps your tongue is permanently lodged in your cheek? Because
> in your subsequent messages, you continued to refer to the part as a "$27
> part." If readers of your messages are not to take your mathematical
> manipulations seriously, then neither should you.
I'm sorry that you have been distracted by this.
> > My mechanic has my best interests at heart. He doesn't use
> > aftermarket parts unless nothing else is available. My instructions
> > to him are to give me a safe and reliable car. The pricing of the
> > part is not his fault and I hold him harmless in all of this. The
> > price of the igniter is controlled by the dealership, and so is the
> > attitude of their personnel.
>
> > > Maybe you will have luck with a Toyota Corolla
> >
> > I hear that they rank right up there in quality.
>
> Yes, but doubtful that they will meet your 22-year litmus test! The
> reputation of an automobile is based on overall customer satisfaction and
> overall reliability, which is largely determined by other people's accounts
> and reasonable standards for durability, longevity, and fewest number of
> major problems. Your standards, as evidenced by your recent "outrage," are
> not nearly so reasonable. The Toyota is "right up there" with Honda in
> quality, but if Honda quality has dissatisfied you, then being "right up
> there" is not far enough!
It is right now. It may be, as someone suggested, for a Buick when it
comes time to make a decision. In the meantime, the part is on the
dash. I jawboned two people today with my story. One guy said he
wasn't surprised and he laughed at my comparison with a computer. The
other was a woman said "No wonder, Honda is very expensive" in a way
that made me feel as if she has had an experience or two of her own, or
maybe this is just common knowledge.
>
> > I don't expect that a
> > breakdown or a worn-out part will result in such an assault on
> > my wallet or on my sensitivities. These are my feelings and
> > don't require any justification. Somebody at Honda or the
> > dealership must have held up that part and speculated about
> > what the market would bear. Well, I'm here to say that
> > they've miscalculated.
>
> You said it: "I don't expect..." With a 22-year-old car, you should expect
> a lot more repairs than a dinky $193 igniter! I'd rather be Prometheus than
> Epimetheus.
And so, as we are chained to a Honda (mountain) in a repair shop (Mount
Caucasus), the dealership eats away at our wallets (liver)...
> Also, as others have suggested, your particular Honda dealership is not
> generating these prices at random, contrary to what you believe or have
> convinced yourself to believe (as in the misguided notion you have developed
> that your part "looks like it should be worth $27"; since when does your
> subjective evaluation based on appearance dictate market value?).
The statements I have been making to the effect that the part "looks
like it should be worth $27" are obviously subjective. It's going to
be difficult to make any kind of case around this since it is an
opinion same as my comparison with a laptop.
> You must feel badly now that you didn't put in the time, energy, and
> inconvenience that other people invest in trying to find a reasonable price
> for a car part, or at least to determine based on other suppliers that the
> $193 cost was warranted by the current market situation. You paid up at the
> time, and then complain later about it. The Honda dealership obviously did
> not "miscalculate" because you purchased the part at their exact asking
> price!
As I have said many times, I felt as if I had no choice because I
needed the car now. I was over a barrel and they had me, and they knew
it, and they laughed about it. Not conducive to goodwill? is it.
> No, your feelings do not require justification, as you have already shown us
> with your initial statement that you were very angry and then the added
> qualifier "And rightly so." (!!!)
Yeah. Thank you.
EdRuscha <samsamjeh@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
> news:010820031257372523%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
> >
> >
> > Mathematic gymnastics, maybe, but disclaimed many times as being
> > tongue-in-cheek. I think that most people who read these messages
> > know that I don't seriously consider that a comparison of a laptop
> > and an igniter is anything more than coincidental due to the
> > appearance of the two items, and anecdotal/rhetorical. You really
> > should stop flaying me with this as it has become a red herring,
> > i.e. a substitute for the discussion of what is really a matter of
> > consumer relations.
>
> Maybe you disclaimed your bizarre calculations as being tongue-in-cheek,
> yes, but perhaps your tongue is permanently lodged in your cheek? Because
> in your subsequent messages, you continued to refer to the part as a "$27
> part." If readers of your messages are not to take your mathematical
> manipulations seriously, then neither should you.
I'm sorry that you have been distracted by this.
> > My mechanic has my best interests at heart. He doesn't use
> > aftermarket parts unless nothing else is available. My instructions
> > to him are to give me a safe and reliable car. The pricing of the
> > part is not his fault and I hold him harmless in all of this. The
> > price of the igniter is controlled by the dealership, and so is the
> > attitude of their personnel.
>
> > > Maybe you will have luck with a Toyota Corolla
> >
> > I hear that they rank right up there in quality.
>
> Yes, but doubtful that they will meet your 22-year litmus test! The
> reputation of an automobile is based on overall customer satisfaction and
> overall reliability, which is largely determined by other people's accounts
> and reasonable standards for durability, longevity, and fewest number of
> major problems. Your standards, as evidenced by your recent "outrage," are
> not nearly so reasonable. The Toyota is "right up there" with Honda in
> quality, but if Honda quality has dissatisfied you, then being "right up
> there" is not far enough!
It is right now. It may be, as someone suggested, for a Buick when it
comes time to make a decision. In the meantime, the part is on the
dash. I jawboned two people today with my story. One guy said he
wasn't surprised and he laughed at my comparison with a computer. The
other was a woman said "No wonder, Honda is very expensive" in a way
that made me feel as if she has had an experience or two of her own, or
maybe this is just common knowledge.
>
> > I don't expect that a
> > breakdown or a worn-out part will result in such an assault on
> > my wallet or on my sensitivities. These are my feelings and
> > don't require any justification. Somebody at Honda or the
> > dealership must have held up that part and speculated about
> > what the market would bear. Well, I'm here to say that
> > they've miscalculated.
>
> You said it: "I don't expect..." With a 22-year-old car, you should expect
> a lot more repairs than a dinky $193 igniter! I'd rather be Prometheus than
> Epimetheus.
And so, as we are chained to a Honda (mountain) in a repair shop (Mount
Caucasus), the dealership eats away at our wallets (liver)...
> Also, as others have suggested, your particular Honda dealership is not
> generating these prices at random, contrary to what you believe or have
> convinced yourself to believe (as in the misguided notion you have developed
> that your part "looks like it should be worth $27"; since when does your
> subjective evaluation based on appearance dictate market value?).
The statements I have been making to the effect that the part "looks
like it should be worth $27" are obviously subjective. It's going to
be difficult to make any kind of case around this since it is an
opinion same as my comparison with a laptop.
> You must feel badly now that you didn't put in the time, energy, and
> inconvenience that other people invest in trying to find a reasonable price
> for a car part, or at least to determine based on other suppliers that the
> $193 cost was warranted by the current market situation. You paid up at the
> time, and then complain later about it. The Honda dealership obviously did
> not "miscalculate" because you purchased the part at their exact asking
> price!
As I have said many times, I felt as if I had no choice because I
needed the car now. I was over a barrel and they had me, and they knew
it, and they laughed about it. Not conducive to goodwill? is it.
> No, your feelings do not require justification, as you have already shown us
> with your initial statement that you were very angry and then the added
> qualifier "And rightly so." (!!!)
Yeah. Thank you.
#189
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <jsCWa.15213$Vx2.7643321@newssvr28.news.prodigy.co m>,
EdRuscha <samsamjeh@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
> news:010820031257372523%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
> >
> >
> > Mathematic gymnastics, maybe, but disclaimed many times as being
> > tongue-in-cheek. I think that most people who read these messages
> > know that I don't seriously consider that a comparison of a laptop
> > and an igniter is anything more than coincidental due to the
> > appearance of the two items, and anecdotal/rhetorical. You really
> > should stop flaying me with this as it has become a red herring,
> > i.e. a substitute for the discussion of what is really a matter of
> > consumer relations.
>
> Maybe you disclaimed your bizarre calculations as being tongue-in-cheek,
> yes, but perhaps your tongue is permanently lodged in your cheek? Because
> in your subsequent messages, you continued to refer to the part as a "$27
> part." If readers of your messages are not to take your mathematical
> manipulations seriously, then neither should you.
I'm sorry that you have been distracted by this.
> > My mechanic has my best interests at heart. He doesn't use
> > aftermarket parts unless nothing else is available. My instructions
> > to him are to give me a safe and reliable car. The pricing of the
> > part is not his fault and I hold him harmless in all of this. The
> > price of the igniter is controlled by the dealership, and so is the
> > attitude of their personnel.
>
> > > Maybe you will have luck with a Toyota Corolla
> >
> > I hear that they rank right up there in quality.
>
> Yes, but doubtful that they will meet your 22-year litmus test! The
> reputation of an automobile is based on overall customer satisfaction and
> overall reliability, which is largely determined by other people's accounts
> and reasonable standards for durability, longevity, and fewest number of
> major problems. Your standards, as evidenced by your recent "outrage," are
> not nearly so reasonable. The Toyota is "right up there" with Honda in
> quality, but if Honda quality has dissatisfied you, then being "right up
> there" is not far enough!
It is right now. It may be, as someone suggested, for a Buick when it
comes time to make a decision. In the meantime, the part is on the
dash. I jawboned two people today with my story. One guy said he
wasn't surprised and he laughed at my comparison with a computer. The
other was a woman said "No wonder, Honda is very expensive" in a way
that made me feel as if she has had an experience or two of her own, or
maybe this is just common knowledge.
>
> > I don't expect that a
> > breakdown or a worn-out part will result in such an assault on
> > my wallet or on my sensitivities. These are my feelings and
> > don't require any justification. Somebody at Honda or the
> > dealership must have held up that part and speculated about
> > what the market would bear. Well, I'm here to say that
> > they've miscalculated.
>
> You said it: "I don't expect..." With a 22-year-old car, you should expect
> a lot more repairs than a dinky $193 igniter! I'd rather be Prometheus than
> Epimetheus.
And so, as we are chained to a Honda (mountain) in a repair shop (Mount
Caucasus), the dealership eats away at our wallets (liver)...
> Also, as others have suggested, your particular Honda dealership is not
> generating these prices at random, contrary to what you believe or have
> convinced yourself to believe (as in the misguided notion you have developed
> that your part "looks like it should be worth $27"; since when does your
> subjective evaluation based on appearance dictate market value?).
The statements I have been making to the effect that the part "looks
like it should be worth $27" are obviously subjective. It's going to
be difficult to make any kind of case around this since it is an
opinion same as my comparison with a laptop.
> You must feel badly now that you didn't put in the time, energy, and
> inconvenience that other people invest in trying to find a reasonable price
> for a car part, or at least to determine based on other suppliers that the
> $193 cost was warranted by the current market situation. You paid up at the
> time, and then complain later about it. The Honda dealership obviously did
> not "miscalculate" because you purchased the part at their exact asking
> price!
As I have said many times, I felt as if I had no choice because I
needed the car now. I was over a barrel and they had me, and they knew
it, and they laughed about it. Not conducive to goodwill? is it.
> No, your feelings do not require justification, as you have already shown us
> with your initial statement that you were very angry and then the added
> qualifier "And rightly so." (!!!)
Yeah. Thank you.
EdRuscha <samsamjeh@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
> news:010820031257372523%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
> >
> >
> > Mathematic gymnastics, maybe, but disclaimed many times as being
> > tongue-in-cheek. I think that most people who read these messages
> > know that I don't seriously consider that a comparison of a laptop
> > and an igniter is anything more than coincidental due to the
> > appearance of the two items, and anecdotal/rhetorical. You really
> > should stop flaying me with this as it has become a red herring,
> > i.e. a substitute for the discussion of what is really a matter of
> > consumer relations.
>
> Maybe you disclaimed your bizarre calculations as being tongue-in-cheek,
> yes, but perhaps your tongue is permanently lodged in your cheek? Because
> in your subsequent messages, you continued to refer to the part as a "$27
> part." If readers of your messages are not to take your mathematical
> manipulations seriously, then neither should you.
I'm sorry that you have been distracted by this.
> > My mechanic has my best interests at heart. He doesn't use
> > aftermarket parts unless nothing else is available. My instructions
> > to him are to give me a safe and reliable car. The pricing of the
> > part is not his fault and I hold him harmless in all of this. The
> > price of the igniter is controlled by the dealership, and so is the
> > attitude of their personnel.
>
> > > Maybe you will have luck with a Toyota Corolla
> >
> > I hear that they rank right up there in quality.
>
> Yes, but doubtful that they will meet your 22-year litmus test! The
> reputation of an automobile is based on overall customer satisfaction and
> overall reliability, which is largely determined by other people's accounts
> and reasonable standards for durability, longevity, and fewest number of
> major problems. Your standards, as evidenced by your recent "outrage," are
> not nearly so reasonable. The Toyota is "right up there" with Honda in
> quality, but if Honda quality has dissatisfied you, then being "right up
> there" is not far enough!
It is right now. It may be, as someone suggested, for a Buick when it
comes time to make a decision. In the meantime, the part is on the
dash. I jawboned two people today with my story. One guy said he
wasn't surprised and he laughed at my comparison with a computer. The
other was a woman said "No wonder, Honda is very expensive" in a way
that made me feel as if she has had an experience or two of her own, or
maybe this is just common knowledge.
>
> > I don't expect that a
> > breakdown or a worn-out part will result in such an assault on
> > my wallet or on my sensitivities. These are my feelings and
> > don't require any justification. Somebody at Honda or the
> > dealership must have held up that part and speculated about
> > what the market would bear. Well, I'm here to say that
> > they've miscalculated.
>
> You said it: "I don't expect..." With a 22-year-old car, you should expect
> a lot more repairs than a dinky $193 igniter! I'd rather be Prometheus than
> Epimetheus.
And so, as we are chained to a Honda (mountain) in a repair shop (Mount
Caucasus), the dealership eats away at our wallets (liver)...
> Also, as others have suggested, your particular Honda dealership is not
> generating these prices at random, contrary to what you believe or have
> convinced yourself to believe (as in the misguided notion you have developed
> that your part "looks like it should be worth $27"; since when does your
> subjective evaluation based on appearance dictate market value?).
The statements I have been making to the effect that the part "looks
like it should be worth $27" are obviously subjective. It's going to
be difficult to make any kind of case around this since it is an
opinion same as my comparison with a laptop.
> You must feel badly now that you didn't put in the time, energy, and
> inconvenience that other people invest in trying to find a reasonable price
> for a car part, or at least to determine based on other suppliers that the
> $193 cost was warranted by the current market situation. You paid up at the
> time, and then complain later about it. The Honda dealership obviously did
> not "miscalculate" because you purchased the part at their exact asking
> price!
As I have said many times, I felt as if I had no choice because I
needed the car now. I was over a barrel and they had me, and they knew
it, and they laughed about it. Not conducive to goodwill? is it.
> No, your feelings do not require justification, as you have already shown us
> with your initial statement that you were very angry and then the added
> qualifier "And rightly so." (!!!)
Yeah. Thank you.
#190
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <jsCWa.15213$Vx2.7643321@newssvr28.news.prodigy.co m>,
EdRuscha <samsamjeh@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
> news:010820031257372523%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
> >
> >
> > Mathematic gymnastics, maybe, but disclaimed many times as being
> > tongue-in-cheek. I think that most people who read these messages
> > know that I don't seriously consider that a comparison of a laptop
> > and an igniter is anything more than coincidental due to the
> > appearance of the two items, and anecdotal/rhetorical. You really
> > should stop flaying me with this as it has become a red herring,
> > i.e. a substitute for the discussion of what is really a matter of
> > consumer relations.
>
> Maybe you disclaimed your bizarre calculations as being tongue-in-cheek,
> yes, but perhaps your tongue is permanently lodged in your cheek? Because
> in your subsequent messages, you continued to refer to the part as a "$27
> part." If readers of your messages are not to take your mathematical
> manipulations seriously, then neither should you.
I'm sorry that you have been distracted by this.
> > My mechanic has my best interests at heart. He doesn't use
> > aftermarket parts unless nothing else is available. My instructions
> > to him are to give me a safe and reliable car. The pricing of the
> > part is not his fault and I hold him harmless in all of this. The
> > price of the igniter is controlled by the dealership, and so is the
> > attitude of their personnel.
>
> > > Maybe you will have luck with a Toyota Corolla
> >
> > I hear that they rank right up there in quality.
>
> Yes, but doubtful that they will meet your 22-year litmus test! The
> reputation of an automobile is based on overall customer satisfaction and
> overall reliability, which is largely determined by other people's accounts
> and reasonable standards for durability, longevity, and fewest number of
> major problems. Your standards, as evidenced by your recent "outrage," are
> not nearly so reasonable. The Toyota is "right up there" with Honda in
> quality, but if Honda quality has dissatisfied you, then being "right up
> there" is not far enough!
It is right now. It may be, as someone suggested, for a Buick when it
comes time to make a decision. In the meantime, the part is on the
dash. I jawboned two people today with my story. One guy said he
wasn't surprised and he laughed at my comparison with a computer. The
other was a woman said "No wonder, Honda is very expensive" in a way
that made me feel as if she has had an experience or two of her own, or
maybe this is just common knowledge.
>
> > I don't expect that a
> > breakdown or a worn-out part will result in such an assault on
> > my wallet or on my sensitivities. These are my feelings and
> > don't require any justification. Somebody at Honda or the
> > dealership must have held up that part and speculated about
> > what the market would bear. Well, I'm here to say that
> > they've miscalculated.
>
> You said it: "I don't expect..." With a 22-year-old car, you should expect
> a lot more repairs than a dinky $193 igniter! I'd rather be Prometheus than
> Epimetheus.
And so, as we are chained to a Honda (mountain) in a repair shop (Mount
Caucasus), the dealership eats away at our wallets (liver)...
> Also, as others have suggested, your particular Honda dealership is not
> generating these prices at random, contrary to what you believe or have
> convinced yourself to believe (as in the misguided notion you have developed
> that your part "looks like it should be worth $27"; since when does your
> subjective evaluation based on appearance dictate market value?).
The statements I have been making to the effect that the part "looks
like it should be worth $27" are obviously subjective. It's going to
be difficult to make any kind of case around this since it is an
opinion same as my comparison with a laptop.
> You must feel badly now that you didn't put in the time, energy, and
> inconvenience that other people invest in trying to find a reasonable price
> for a car part, or at least to determine based on other suppliers that the
> $193 cost was warranted by the current market situation. You paid up at the
> time, and then complain later about it. The Honda dealership obviously did
> not "miscalculate" because you purchased the part at their exact asking
> price!
As I have said many times, I felt as if I had no choice because I
needed the car now. I was over a barrel and they had me, and they knew
it, and they laughed about it. Not conducive to goodwill? is it.
> No, your feelings do not require justification, as you have already shown us
> with your initial statement that you were very angry and then the added
> qualifier "And rightly so." (!!!)
Yeah. Thank you.
EdRuscha <samsamjeh@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
> news:010820031257372523%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
> >
> >
> > Mathematic gymnastics, maybe, but disclaimed many times as being
> > tongue-in-cheek. I think that most people who read these messages
> > know that I don't seriously consider that a comparison of a laptop
> > and an igniter is anything more than coincidental due to the
> > appearance of the two items, and anecdotal/rhetorical. You really
> > should stop flaying me with this as it has become a red herring,
> > i.e. a substitute for the discussion of what is really a matter of
> > consumer relations.
>
> Maybe you disclaimed your bizarre calculations as being tongue-in-cheek,
> yes, but perhaps your tongue is permanently lodged in your cheek? Because
> in your subsequent messages, you continued to refer to the part as a "$27
> part." If readers of your messages are not to take your mathematical
> manipulations seriously, then neither should you.
I'm sorry that you have been distracted by this.
> > My mechanic has my best interests at heart. He doesn't use
> > aftermarket parts unless nothing else is available. My instructions
> > to him are to give me a safe and reliable car. The pricing of the
> > part is not his fault and I hold him harmless in all of this. The
> > price of the igniter is controlled by the dealership, and so is the
> > attitude of their personnel.
>
> > > Maybe you will have luck with a Toyota Corolla
> >
> > I hear that they rank right up there in quality.
>
> Yes, but doubtful that they will meet your 22-year litmus test! The
> reputation of an automobile is based on overall customer satisfaction and
> overall reliability, which is largely determined by other people's accounts
> and reasonable standards for durability, longevity, and fewest number of
> major problems. Your standards, as evidenced by your recent "outrage," are
> not nearly so reasonable. The Toyota is "right up there" with Honda in
> quality, but if Honda quality has dissatisfied you, then being "right up
> there" is not far enough!
It is right now. It may be, as someone suggested, for a Buick when it
comes time to make a decision. In the meantime, the part is on the
dash. I jawboned two people today with my story. One guy said he
wasn't surprised and he laughed at my comparison with a computer. The
other was a woman said "No wonder, Honda is very expensive" in a way
that made me feel as if she has had an experience or two of her own, or
maybe this is just common knowledge.
>
> > I don't expect that a
> > breakdown or a worn-out part will result in such an assault on
> > my wallet or on my sensitivities. These are my feelings and
> > don't require any justification. Somebody at Honda or the
> > dealership must have held up that part and speculated about
> > what the market would bear. Well, I'm here to say that
> > they've miscalculated.
>
> You said it: "I don't expect..." With a 22-year-old car, you should expect
> a lot more repairs than a dinky $193 igniter! I'd rather be Prometheus than
> Epimetheus.
And so, as we are chained to a Honda (mountain) in a repair shop (Mount
Caucasus), the dealership eats away at our wallets (liver)...
> Also, as others have suggested, your particular Honda dealership is not
> generating these prices at random, contrary to what you believe or have
> convinced yourself to believe (as in the misguided notion you have developed
> that your part "looks like it should be worth $27"; since when does your
> subjective evaluation based on appearance dictate market value?).
The statements I have been making to the effect that the part "looks
like it should be worth $27" are obviously subjective. It's going to
be difficult to make any kind of case around this since it is an
opinion same as my comparison with a laptop.
> You must feel badly now that you didn't put in the time, energy, and
> inconvenience that other people invest in trying to find a reasonable price
> for a car part, or at least to determine based on other suppliers that the
> $193 cost was warranted by the current market situation. You paid up at the
> time, and then complain later about it. The Honda dealership obviously did
> not "miscalculate" because you purchased the part at their exact asking
> price!
As I have said many times, I felt as if I had no choice because I
needed the car now. I was over a barrel and they had me, and they knew
it, and they laughed about it. Not conducive to goodwill? is it.
> No, your feelings do not require justification, as you have already shown us
> with your initial statement that you were very angry and then the added
> qualifier "And rightly so." (!!!)
Yeah. Thank you.
#191
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <jsCWa.15213$Vx2.7643321@newssvr28.news.prodigy.co m>,
EdRuscha <samsamjeh@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
> news:010820031257372523%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
> >
> >
> > Mathematic gymnastics, maybe, but disclaimed many times as being
> > tongue-in-cheek. I think that most people who read these messages
> > know that I don't seriously consider that a comparison of a laptop
> > and an igniter is anything more than coincidental due to the
> > appearance of the two items, and anecdotal/rhetorical. You really
> > should stop flaying me with this as it has become a red herring,
> > i.e. a substitute for the discussion of what is really a matter of
> > consumer relations.
>
> Maybe you disclaimed your bizarre calculations as being tongue-in-cheek,
> yes, but perhaps your tongue is permanently lodged in your cheek? Because
> in your subsequent messages, you continued to refer to the part as a "$27
> part." If readers of your messages are not to take your mathematical
> manipulations seriously, then neither should you.
I'm sorry that you have been distracted by this.
> > My mechanic has my best interests at heart. He doesn't use
> > aftermarket parts unless nothing else is available. My instructions
> > to him are to give me a safe and reliable car. The pricing of the
> > part is not his fault and I hold him harmless in all of this. The
> > price of the igniter is controlled by the dealership, and so is the
> > attitude of their personnel.
>
> > > Maybe you will have luck with a Toyota Corolla
> >
> > I hear that they rank right up there in quality.
>
> Yes, but doubtful that they will meet your 22-year litmus test! The
> reputation of an automobile is based on overall customer satisfaction and
> overall reliability, which is largely determined by other people's accounts
> and reasonable standards for durability, longevity, and fewest number of
> major problems. Your standards, as evidenced by your recent "outrage," are
> not nearly so reasonable. The Toyota is "right up there" with Honda in
> quality, but if Honda quality has dissatisfied you, then being "right up
> there" is not far enough!
It is right now. It may be, as someone suggested, for a Buick when it
comes time to make a decision. In the meantime, the part is on the
dash. I jawboned two people today with my story. One guy said he
wasn't surprised and he laughed at my comparison with a computer. The
other was a woman said "No wonder, Honda is very expensive" in a way
that made me feel as if she has had an experience or two of her own, or
maybe this is just common knowledge.
>
> > I don't expect that a
> > breakdown or a worn-out part will result in such an assault on
> > my wallet or on my sensitivities. These are my feelings and
> > don't require any justification. Somebody at Honda or the
> > dealership must have held up that part and speculated about
> > what the market would bear. Well, I'm here to say that
> > they've miscalculated.
>
> You said it: "I don't expect..." With a 22-year-old car, you should expect
> a lot more repairs than a dinky $193 igniter! I'd rather be Prometheus than
> Epimetheus.
And so, as we are chained to a Honda (mountain) in a repair shop (Mount
Caucasus), the dealership eats away at our wallets (liver)...
> Also, as others have suggested, your particular Honda dealership is not
> generating these prices at random, contrary to what you believe or have
> convinced yourself to believe (as in the misguided notion you have developed
> that your part "looks like it should be worth $27"; since when does your
> subjective evaluation based on appearance dictate market value?).
The statements I have been making to the effect that the part "looks
like it should be worth $27" are obviously subjective. It's going to
be difficult to make any kind of case around this since it is an
opinion same as my comparison with a laptop.
> You must feel badly now that you didn't put in the time, energy, and
> inconvenience that other people invest in trying to find a reasonable price
> for a car part, or at least to determine based on other suppliers that the
> $193 cost was warranted by the current market situation. You paid up at the
> time, and then complain later about it. The Honda dealership obviously did
> not "miscalculate" because you purchased the part at their exact asking
> price!
As I have said many times, I felt as if I had no choice because I
needed the car now. I was over a barrel and they had me, and they knew
it, and they laughed about it. Not conducive to goodwill? is it.
> No, your feelings do not require justification, as you have already shown us
> with your initial statement that you were very angry and then the added
> qualifier "And rightly so." (!!!)
Yeah. Thank you.
EdRuscha <samsamjeh@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
> news:010820031257372523%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
> >
> >
> > Mathematic gymnastics, maybe, but disclaimed many times as being
> > tongue-in-cheek. I think that most people who read these messages
> > know that I don't seriously consider that a comparison of a laptop
> > and an igniter is anything more than coincidental due to the
> > appearance of the two items, and anecdotal/rhetorical. You really
> > should stop flaying me with this as it has become a red herring,
> > i.e. a substitute for the discussion of what is really a matter of
> > consumer relations.
>
> Maybe you disclaimed your bizarre calculations as being tongue-in-cheek,
> yes, but perhaps your tongue is permanently lodged in your cheek? Because
> in your subsequent messages, you continued to refer to the part as a "$27
> part." If readers of your messages are not to take your mathematical
> manipulations seriously, then neither should you.
I'm sorry that you have been distracted by this.
> > My mechanic has my best interests at heart. He doesn't use
> > aftermarket parts unless nothing else is available. My instructions
> > to him are to give me a safe and reliable car. The pricing of the
> > part is not his fault and I hold him harmless in all of this. The
> > price of the igniter is controlled by the dealership, and so is the
> > attitude of their personnel.
>
> > > Maybe you will have luck with a Toyota Corolla
> >
> > I hear that they rank right up there in quality.
>
> Yes, but doubtful that they will meet your 22-year litmus test! The
> reputation of an automobile is based on overall customer satisfaction and
> overall reliability, which is largely determined by other people's accounts
> and reasonable standards for durability, longevity, and fewest number of
> major problems. Your standards, as evidenced by your recent "outrage," are
> not nearly so reasonable. The Toyota is "right up there" with Honda in
> quality, but if Honda quality has dissatisfied you, then being "right up
> there" is not far enough!
It is right now. It may be, as someone suggested, for a Buick when it
comes time to make a decision. In the meantime, the part is on the
dash. I jawboned two people today with my story. One guy said he
wasn't surprised and he laughed at my comparison with a computer. The
other was a woman said "No wonder, Honda is very expensive" in a way
that made me feel as if she has had an experience or two of her own, or
maybe this is just common knowledge.
>
> > I don't expect that a
> > breakdown or a worn-out part will result in such an assault on
> > my wallet or on my sensitivities. These are my feelings and
> > don't require any justification. Somebody at Honda or the
> > dealership must have held up that part and speculated about
> > what the market would bear. Well, I'm here to say that
> > they've miscalculated.
>
> You said it: "I don't expect..." With a 22-year-old car, you should expect
> a lot more repairs than a dinky $193 igniter! I'd rather be Prometheus than
> Epimetheus.
And so, as we are chained to a Honda (mountain) in a repair shop (Mount
Caucasus), the dealership eats away at our wallets (liver)...
> Also, as others have suggested, your particular Honda dealership is not
> generating these prices at random, contrary to what you believe or have
> convinced yourself to believe (as in the misguided notion you have developed
> that your part "looks like it should be worth $27"; since when does your
> subjective evaluation based on appearance dictate market value?).
The statements I have been making to the effect that the part "looks
like it should be worth $27" are obviously subjective. It's going to
be difficult to make any kind of case around this since it is an
opinion same as my comparison with a laptop.
> You must feel badly now that you didn't put in the time, energy, and
> inconvenience that other people invest in trying to find a reasonable price
> for a car part, or at least to determine based on other suppliers that the
> $193 cost was warranted by the current market situation. You paid up at the
> time, and then complain later about it. The Honda dealership obviously did
> not "miscalculate" because you purchased the part at their exact asking
> price!
As I have said many times, I felt as if I had no choice because I
needed the car now. I was over a barrel and they had me, and they knew
it, and they laughed about it. Not conducive to goodwill? is it.
> No, your feelings do not require justification, as you have already shown us
> with your initial statement that you were very angry and then the added
> qualifier "And rightly so." (!!!)
Yeah. Thank you.
#192
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <35nlivghqhkhe7tf01ncdkd45sdclr85mc@4ax.com>, D. Martin
<dmartin7@videotron.ca.remove> wrote:
> This guy replies to every post, I can't believe this guy..........
If people respond then I feel as if they are entitled to a response.
<dmartin7@videotron.ca.remove> wrote:
> This guy replies to every post, I can't believe this guy..........
If people respond then I feel as if they are entitled to a response.
#193
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <35nlivghqhkhe7tf01ncdkd45sdclr85mc@4ax.com>, D. Martin
<dmartin7@videotron.ca.remove> wrote:
> This guy replies to every post, I can't believe this guy..........
If people respond then I feel as if they are entitled to a response.
<dmartin7@videotron.ca.remove> wrote:
> This guy replies to every post, I can't believe this guy..........
If people respond then I feel as if they are entitled to a response.
#194
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
"expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
news:010820031808578136%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
> In article <eprlivc5ci2hl450fhajskel6tmqkdf356@4ax.com>, TL
> <tlehman@visi.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:53:02 GMT, expensive
> > <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote:
> >
> > >The part alone is $193 at the Honda dealer's parts counter.
> >
> >
> > OK, I'll play the part of troll. In my opinion this part is
> > underpriced. After all, it is a critical element in making the car
> > run. What's it worth to you? I'll bet you would have paid $300 for it.
> > You would have complained, of course, but you'd have paid it.
> > Therefore I think the price is below market value.
>
>
> You're forgetting something. When a person finds himself trapped by
> the circumstances that befell me, his actions are not the actions of
> someone in a "marketplace" in the conventional sense. So the price I
> paid was not a "free market value."
>
> The only one in town with one of these items was the dealer (a parts
> store said they could order it in for $266), so I would guess that they
> are buying from Honda and marking it up.
>
> If you're the only one in town with a drink of water, then you can have
> your way with it. But someone may do you harm. The Honda dealership
> acted the same way as you with your glass of water. The only way I can
> retaliate is to jawbone the outrageous price and other circumstances
> hoping to cost the local dealer some sales.
>
> They laughed at me, I'll get the last laugh. You refer to markets?
> That's the way markets work sometimes and Honda erred by figuring that
> someone with a failed igniter would roll over for some shoddy treatment
> and outrageous costs.
But you did roll over. "Jawboning" now does not change that.
#195
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
"expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
news:010820031808578136%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
> In article <eprlivc5ci2hl450fhajskel6tmqkdf356@4ax.com>, TL
> <tlehman@visi.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:53:02 GMT, expensive
> > <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote:
> >
> > >The part alone is $193 at the Honda dealer's parts counter.
> >
> >
> > OK, I'll play the part of troll. In my opinion this part is
> > underpriced. After all, it is a critical element in making the car
> > run. What's it worth to you? I'll bet you would have paid $300 for it.
> > You would have complained, of course, but you'd have paid it.
> > Therefore I think the price is below market value.
>
>
> You're forgetting something. When a person finds himself trapped by
> the circumstances that befell me, his actions are not the actions of
> someone in a "marketplace" in the conventional sense. So the price I
> paid was not a "free market value."
>
> The only one in town with one of these items was the dealer (a parts
> store said they could order it in for $266), so I would guess that they
> are buying from Honda and marking it up.
>
> If you're the only one in town with a drink of water, then you can have
> your way with it. But someone may do you harm. The Honda dealership
> acted the same way as you with your glass of water. The only way I can
> retaliate is to jawbone the outrageous price and other circumstances
> hoping to cost the local dealer some sales.
>
> They laughed at me, I'll get the last laugh. You refer to markets?
> That's the way markets work sometimes and Honda erred by figuring that
> someone with a failed igniter would roll over for some shoddy treatment
> and outrageous costs.
But you did roll over. "Jawboning" now does not change that.